HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: Scientific American

How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? - Instant Egghead #28

2230 ratings | 385153 views
How do scientists determine the age of fossils that have been under the surface of the earth for thousands of years? Scientific American Editor Michael Moyer explains the process of radiocarbon dating. -- WATCH more Instant Egghead: http://goo.gl/CkXwKj SUBSCRIBE to our channel: http://goo.gl/fmoXZ VISIT ScientificAmerican.com for the latest science news:http://goo.gl/lHq0CH
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (510)
Jason Gooden (8 days ago)
Birth certificates can be forged and trees sometimes get more than one ring in a single year, just saying.
aTYPICAL (18 days ago)
how can they say that the ratio of 14-c and other carbons is constant as long as the organism is alive and eating, when there are thousand and thousands of variables out there that may affect the result, this is a pretty baseless opinion, I can't believe how carbon 14 dating got accepted in today's science when it's results are nowhere close to accurate
The River of Faith (24 days ago)
Do you know of the single scientific dating method used for accurately dating any object? If so, what is it, and how does it work?
Christian Holmes (1 month ago)
hey guys want to be my freind
viveka bm (1 month ago)
how does nitrogen after hitting by cosmic rays becomes carbon
c.sagan (1 month ago)
Thank you then but i still uncomfortable i want to study all this
LNK (2 months ago)
cut the theatrics, lets see a demo. we all know that in theory, standard bricks are 115 mm thick, however all bricklayers know that 99.9% of them rarely go over 107mm. we don't want the children's version, we want to know how we can test the theory in practice. After all so much is often at stake when this stuff is used, That it should be taught to year seven kids. And it needs to be beyond doubt.
Brayden Boyle (2 months ago)
asim shah (3 months ago)
how do we remove or measure carbon 14 from fossil
herrozzy (3 months ago)
Damn this dude is hot
Pollution X (4 months ago)
how do you know how much carbon 14 did it originally have?
00 0 (4 months ago)
thanks for helping my final term
XDBro (4 months ago)
If carbon-14 is so high up in the atmosphere, how do animals get it? We're not exposed to the rays that change it, right?
Dowell Boys (5 months ago)
Alright. Take a small sample of my skin and see if your system is accurate.
srikanth Kanthi (5 months ago)
Paul Töpfer (5 months ago)
geile sau
Holden&HSVS05 (5 months ago)
Thanks mate that was really helpful.
Miguel Nieto (6 months ago)
jason sims (6 months ago)
And what tests were done over and over to the point that it became predictable to prove the range of age? Lolz
ahmed hamada (6 months ago)
does the ending remind anyone of the Air France airline's ending music in its tutorial or any airline? :D
jasper+achternaam (7 months ago)
Lovely video, didnt take long for the religious nuts to take over the comment section on this one
Adrian Piejko (7 months ago)
All of it is one massive assumption
Stuart Law (8 months ago)
Isn't right precious doesn't works
Danny Hauger (8 months ago)
Great classroom resource, thanks!
nutrino (9 months ago)
Related to comments below: No dinosaur bones have been discovered. What have been recovered are dinosaur fossils. By definition, a fossil is any plant or animal with evidence of prehistoric life that is at least 10,000 years old. When minerals in ground water have replaced organic tissues, what is left is a solid or rock-like copy of the original specimen, referred to as a fossil. Furthermore, carbon 14 radiometric dating is not used to date fossilized specimens, but human made artifacts with precautions. For dating fossils, scientists measure isotopes from uranium-235, uranium-238 and potassium-40, because these radioactive elements have half-lives of more than a million years. A word of caution: A small, but vociferous, group of unscrupulous creation "scientists" with "PhD's" have hijacked the internet with YouTube videos and self-made publications claiming flagrant flaws in accepted dating methods and astronomical physics, only to bolster their entrenched claim for a "young earth," in the range of 8,000 to 12,000 years old. These opinions do not reflect the opinions of mainstream scientists, from any discipline, and their methods are not within current scientific research protocols and have not been subjected to legitimate peer review. Put simply, If the science is against you, attack the scientific method.
Dhiraj Kumar (9 months ago)
D V (9 months ago)
I still don’t believe in authenticity of the Carbon dating! Is there any other recent upgraded techniques that these paleochronologists use that could replace this carbondating?
Laura Peric (9 months ago)
That makes no sense whatsoever
This Is Jerinho (10 months ago)
carbon team leader : remember the rule guys. only half of us may leave until the end of this half life. the rest please wait. so they'll think this fossil have lasted much longer. and save the rest of us in the museum. and live happily ever after. god bless us all
Mike Ashman (10 months ago)
Are there other ways carbon 14 is made? How can you explain carbon 14 being found in samples presumably millions of years old? I didn't make up the age of the geologic column, but some moron did according to carbon 14. Who can point me in the direction of unbiased knowledge?
J. Hendrix (11 months ago)
Ok so since dinosaur bones contain C14, it's impossible for them to be more than about 27,000 years old, right?
BezoomnyBratchny (11 months ago)
Can you give me a single example of an uncontaminated dinosaur fossils that contains c14?
Abigal Natale (11 months ago)
he looks like he was going to cry in the first 1 min 20 sec - meh
Ben Richards (11 months ago)
dozing off
Logan O'Neal (11 months ago)
Then who determines million years fossil about dinosaurs etc.. that we study as facts in schools?
BezoomnyBratchny (9 months ago)
Sam Sahiri Other radiometric dating methods are used that have longer half lives than carbon 14. Uranium-lead dating for instance. And potassium-argon dating.
Sandy Rephots (11 months ago)
Vine por las fuentes del Robot de Platón... Muy buena explicación, me gusta que hable pronunciando formalmente, así lo entiendo muy bien. Saludos!!
mahendar mahi (1 year ago)
nice explanation sir tq
Edward (1 year ago)
Thanks, Michael! Now I understand Carbon Dating !!! Room 206 in Toronto, Canada.
Great video, but one thing is to much simplified. Cosmic rays can´t transform protons to neutrons. The neutron i sligtly heavier than the proton and it is possible to convert neutrons to protons, radiating an electron, beta decay throug weak interaction.The cosmic rays transmut atoms in the atmosphere spreading out neutrons and protons.Most protons capture electrons and become hydrogen, but the neutral neutron continue and hit the most common element in the atmosphere, nitrogen. When nitrogen captures a neutron, it becomes an isotope of carbon by emitting a proton.
IllogicalSimplicity (1 year ago)
Perfect! This video was the most helpful video I found on Carbon Dating! I've been trying to understand how scientists date the Earth as oppose to fossils, this video explained things in such a way that I could apply the wisdom to understand dating the planet better, thank you!
Kevin TVO (1 year ago)
Hello, I am writing to follow up on my message dated August 29th regarding the use of your video "Basic Trigonometry Review" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZeE7Att_s) in our course SPH3U - Grade 11 University Prep Physics. The Independent Learning Center (ILC) is a bilingual, non-profit educational institution that develops distance education courses at the high school level for students in Canada. The ILC offers courses in English and French to individuals who wish to obtain credits leading to a high school diploma, to update their basic knowledge or to study in order to improve their skills. The ILC is part of TVO, the province's educational broadcaster. When you have a moment, could you please let me know if this video is available for licensing? Alternatively, if you wish to arrange a telephone call, please let me know when you might be available and I will reach out to you at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much in advance. Kindest Regards, Kevin
Scientific American (1 year ago)
Hi Kevin, So glad you liked the video! You can contact our licensing team at https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/contact-us/reprints-permissions/ to get more information about licensing that video, or any of our others that may fit your needs.
Braňo Rabatin (1 year ago)
But how do we know the initial ratio?
Who else doesn`t know what the heck is he talking? :(
Life (1 year ago)
cool video. to the point. what are the elements they use to see if something is older?
Richard Hambel (1 year ago)
carbon dating is such complete bullcrap it never actually works they dated a seal to be 10000 years old LMAO idiots dont believe this bullcrap there is ZERO evidence of anything being more than 10000 years old this carbon dating bullcrap is just propaganda to push the evolutionist agenda
danyel danyel (7 months ago)
your mom gay and your peener small
Adrian Nelson (11 months ago)
Crawl back to 4chan slug
Richard Hambel (1 year ago)
Lying my ass I did my research. You're just spewing garbage from your trap.
Hayden Case (1 year ago)
You are lying.
RealStoopKid (1 year ago)
Who was the first to use this style of dating and get these numbers? Also how do we not know that the amount of C14 hasn't been affected by say An Asteroid the size of Texas to emit more C14 into dead organisms ?
Stephen Patterson (7 months ago)
Willard Libby. (1947). Asteroids typically aren't "loaded" with Carbon, and are usually rock/ Iron or Ice, silicates. The "dino asteroid" was more like 6 miles; not the size of Texas. moreover a new, recent article suggests thusly: Bottke and his colleagues identified a particular cluster of asteroids that hadn't been studied much yet. Scientists can use computer models and an understanding of the physical forces that affect asteroids to essentially rewind time and determine where these fragments might have come from. In this case, they traced the fragments back to a giant asteroid cluster, whose largest body is now called (298) Baptistina. But there was more to the story. Bottke's team also noticed that the breakup of Baptistina occurred near an "escape route" out of the asteroid belt. In this region, the gravitational kicks produced by the planets, in this case Mars and Jupiter, can change the orbits of the fragments, enough to push some of them out of the asteroid belt and into Earth's path. (Actually, about 100 million years would pass between their escape from the asteroid belt and one asteroid's collision with Earth, but that's not so long on a geologic time scale).
iFlashboy (1 year ago)
1:16 HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lalande Lelouch (1 year ago)
شكرا <3
Mangesh Powar (1 year ago)
thank you... that helped a lot
Michael Groesbeck (1 year ago)
How do they know if radioactive decay is accelerated or not? Carbon Dating is still unreliable because no one can tell me the answer.
fourat garrach (1 year ago)
"elements that have much longer half lifes" like what ?
Cole Peterson (1 year ago)
You've just explained this better than 3 of my Geology professors. Thank you.
kingBRANDONcastle (1 year ago)
How do you know how much of Carbon 14 the animal originally had? How do you know the composition of the atmosphere in which the creature lived to base the answer on?
Pepe - (6 days ago)
+JSkillz That is because living organisms take in and expel carbon dioxide. This will leave the ratio of C12/C14 equal to that of the atmosphere. (Until death when CO2 is not exchanged) However his question is, how are we certain that previous ratios were the same as present day.
JSkillz (2 months ago)
My understanding is that you don't need to know the original amount of C14, the ratio of C12 and C14 is the same in every living organism. It's only when the organism dies that the C14 begins to decay, but crucially the C12 doesn't. Therefore, from the moment it dies the ratio between the two begins to change. Since we know the half life of the isotope, we can therefore know how long it's been since the organism died.
Great short and informative piece, great for teacher use!
Derrick G Wood (1 year ago)
Thank you!! My son, right as I tuck him in: "Dada, how do scientists know how old something is?" Me, cleverly and not showing my panic: "It's bedtime. Ask me first thing in the morning. I'll tell you all about it" as I run to the internet for answers! haha.
Dallas (1 year ago)
So what's the deal with C-14 being found in ancient fossils and rocks? Why is it that we find C-14 in things that are supposed to be billions of years old? We shouldn't be able to see any if it's older than 100,000.
Stephen Patterson (7 months ago)
you're gonna get bing'd on that statement, dude. organic / ex-organic samples only.
Dark Ninja (1 year ago)
Government Shill Because there are a ridiculous amount of carbon atoms in a fossil so even though the number of carbon 14 atoms halves ever 5730 years, there are still trillions left after all that time (or some ridiculous number anyways)
TANMAN47TANMAN (1 year ago)
Dallas Powers cite claim
Mike B (1 year ago)
Wow....you never mentioned climate change or social justice. That's pretty good!
Clayton (1 year ago)
This makes no sense. How does the death of an animal suddenly start the C14 decay clock? Why would that affect any atoms? Atoms don't care if you're dead or alive, they're just atoms.
Leo Sal (8 months ago)
Hi Clayton, C14 is always decaying, the difference is that when an animal dies, it stops replenishing it's C14 because it no longer eats so the ratio of C14/C12 starts decreasing. Hope this helps.
Tom Ato (1 year ago)
+Clayton Your comprehensive knowledge of physics and elaboration are intimidating..
Mark Bradshaw (1 year ago)
I'm no expert and probably getting this wrong, but... "How does the death of an animal suddenly start the C14 decay clock?" If the animal dies, it's no longer taking IN C14 (because it isn't eating), only LOSING it at that point. Death doesn't "trigger" anything here. You can just assume that's when the decaying starts because it isn't maintaining anymore. "Why would that affect any atoms?" The C14 atoms are unstable isotopes (because they are radioactive) so the nucleus can change throughout time. The C14 changes into Nitrogen randomly/unexpectedly. All they are doing is averaging out the rate that C14 will change into Nitrogen (in other words...."decaying"). On average, half of the C14 will turn into Nitrogen in 5,740 years. So....in a way, it IS predictable to some degree.
Dreeti Hazarika (1 year ago)
vey helpful..Thank you very much!😊
realman notcow (1 year ago)
Radioactive material with a half-life of 3 years takes longer to get through valves
Michael Ramos (1 year ago)
Sure, but how do we know how much carbon the animal will have after each half life?
Juan Andres Rivero (1 year ago)
Don't miss out on milliоns ооf s*xy girls neaaar уou => https://twitter.com/a8150f6c284867cb8/status/801992405775826944 Hоw Dоeеees Radiocaaarbon Dating Work Instaant Еgghead 28
Christine Dejolde (1 year ago)
TonneFan - my account was hacked by my brother. Darn that guy
TonneFan - (1 year ago)
+christine 2ne1aknsdxk wtf
Ethan SWAZIE (2 years ago)
Because of decay dude!
Abdulmaliq Attar (2 years ago)
I have a question pls< why C14 starts to change into c12 after the death of the Animal only? why not when he is alive?
Andy Schlachter (2 years ago)
The C-14 decays both during the animal's life and after the animal's death. However, it takes hundreds of years for any significant change to occur.
DavidZimbeck (2 years ago)
And carbon dating is also a crock of shit.
Luke Allen (2 years ago)
kill yourself you fat duck dockers
Tim Crinion (2 years ago)
Let's assume that C12 and C14 have 'reliable' half lives. How do we calculate how old something is unless we know the original C12:C14 ratio in an organism? Also, how do we know that radiation has collided with N14 at a constant rate throughout history? Wouldn't creatures near the poles be less exposed to it than creatures at the equator?
Alexander Lupi (6 days ago)
+LemonGameshark  LemonGameshark  I'm sorry. It's not IN. Yes that is the ratio in the atmosphere. But when for instance a flower takes in carbon, it retains that ratio. And it retains that ratio when it passes it to herbivores and so on. So every living organism has approximately the same ratio as everyone else. And when an organism dies C 14 decays into Nitrogen 14. It decays because it is no longer replenished and it is unstable. So the ratio of 1 C14 for every 1 trillion C12 changes. The radioactive clock is zeroed in at the time the organism dies.
LemonGameshark (6 days ago)
+Alexander Lupi LOL WTF. NO. No there isnt. Thats in the ATMOSPHERE. Not in a fossilized sample. And its 1 FOR every trillion not IN. I love how much the people that religiously defend this know absolutely nothing about it.
Alexander Lupi (7 days ago)
There is one Carbon 14 in every 1 trillion Carbon 12.
LemonGameshark (10 days ago)
Tim Crinion LOL DUDE these idiots cant answer your question because it threatens the credibility of their precious science. Just let it go. Carbon dating is bad science.
Colin Murray (1 month ago)
bit late but, through the use of tree rings a relationship is formed between calendar years and C14 years. If you figure out the C14 age of a specific ring using the ratio of C14:C12 in a tree, and then count the rings back to that point you get the relationship between the two. Therefore, the C14 age can be converted into calendar years. This is necessary because the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is not constant.
In the graph, shouldn't the C12 line be way higher than the C14 curve?
Dennis Muhonen (1 year ago)
They may be on different scales. I'm sure the graph is purely for illustration.
Ferdinand Spirit (2 years ago)
The video every religious person should be forced to watch every 6 months if they want to stay in their religion.
D D (2 years ago)
does this sound like bull shit to anyone else ?
Alex Donnelly (11 months ago)
lmao the kids in these comments
Chip Chapley (1 year ago)
Helena Cromwell hehehe college humour, doctorate of jurisprudence I gather?
Reena Popot (1 year ago)
its bullshit to you because you don't understand it.
Tom Ato (1 year ago)
method was awarded with nobel prize in chemistry and is therefore confirmed by scientific community
Ferdinand Spirit (1 year ago)
xplain why.
KingPatron (2 years ago)
I'm the answer to everything
William Lockhart (2 years ago)
+God Risk I'm willing to take
KingPatron (2 years ago)
you would die from the immense intensity of the answer, that's why he's dead
William Lockhart (2 years ago)
Give the solution to the Rieman Hypothesis
Kevin Rex (2 years ago)
hahahah cool
Ramazan Parmaksiz (2 years ago)
How we know the first amount of carbon 14 in a fossil's body ?
Shad Gragg (1 month ago)
but the C14 original amount is the only thing that actually matters. If there is a difference between species C14 content, then if an animal starved to death the C14 rate would drastically be different from other samples, as it hasn't consumed food for a while and only gets C14 from the atmosphere. Next, you would have to have an assumed amount for their common food, to have an accurate sample of the C14 amount. Next we are assuming that C14 is constant and the N14 content of the atmosphere has been constant for the last 5730 years...
Proco Ultimatum (1 year ago)
And then?
doubletrouble469 (2 years ago)
You look at the carbon 12 measurement. It will be the original amount, since it doesn't decay.
Follower Of Christ (2 years ago)
So, you get millions of years older when you breath and eat vegetables? Haha! That's funny.
James King (2 years ago)
so how do they know it older? lol @2:08
mellenium sinha (2 years ago)
that,s a good explanation a student like me can get to the concept easily thanx
songkhla1 (2 years ago)
Simple and to the point yes, a good explanation. However you keep mentioning fossils. Are you dating fossils, or organic matter ie bone, plant residues, wood?
SILVER SURFER (2 years ago)
So if we land to an alien planet and found a fossils what dating method should we use? boOooommm hahahahaha
SILVER SURFER (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang funny funny funny i forgot to laugh....I'm referring to a date/number/data which gives a lot of dates and the result comes down to choice. It's okay if you're on Earth cause time is already established.
Hari Taqwan Santoso (2 years ago)
How do we know the initial amount of carbon-14 in certain animal?
jino johnson (23 days ago)
+Tommy G. and proof of that "6000 years" would be ?yeah i got it bible right
Tommy G. (2 years ago)
we don't because the atmospheres c14 is not stable (equilibrium), therefore this method is not reliable in any way. If the atmospheres c14 had been stable from about "80,000 yrs" (I believe that the earth is 6,000 yrs old btw) ago then it would be realiable.
Neil Beaton (2 years ago)
+songkhla1 This was a fantastic explanation. Thank you. I don't know what that Hari Taqwan idiot was going on about.
songkhla1 (2 years ago)
+Hari Taqwan Santoso here is a better explanation. As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
songkhla1 (2 years ago)
+Hari Taqwan Santoso this is simple. The ratio of c14 (which depletes over time) to c12 (which remains constant) is actually what is being studied. Therefore it doesn't matter if it is an elephant bone or a grain of rice.
Chris Stuber (2 years ago)
I think an overly simplistic explaination does not answer of the real issues with C14 dating. There are issues of C14 deep in the column which cannot be easily explained. Why do living some living animals yield ancient carbon dating? Inconsistance data from same sample. The really old stuff that needs is really questionable is potassium/argon dating. I don't really understand how they derive these half life values. How do they know something has a half life of millons or billions? I think science at least needs to give all of the details, and make their disclaimers up front on testing methods. These methods are far from exact science and personally I think the argon test appear too large to be believeable and the C14 can't measure anything over 250,000 years old so you end up answers which are questionable. Science can only give a statistic about he objects decay, but translating that into "years" is dubious to be take as fact. Don't you think scientist should provide some comprehensive video to explain their confidence in this measurement.
Brian el (2 years ago)
C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones.
Brian el (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang Google, "ad hominem fallacy."
Brian el (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang It's so easy to call someone a dumbass over the internet, isn't it? Lol.
knexfan0011 (2 years ago)
+Brian L This doesn't disproove anything. If you always reduce something by half, there will always be something left. Walking halfway to the grocery store. Then half of the rest of the way and so on. You will never reach the grocery store, so there is always the chance of some C14 being left, no matter how long you wait.
Nicholas Campbell (2 years ago)
This video is a great introduction to radiometric dating. It provides a great baseline understanding of carbon-14 dating in a simple, easy to understand manner. It explains how the carbon gets into organic material and how the ratios work in calculating the half-life of a sample. However, this is too short to provide any in depth explanation of how carbon-14 is formed and some of the flaws of carbon-14 dating. For example, the description states “How do scientists determine the age of fossils” while radiocarbon dating is helpful in some cases, most fossils are too old to be radiocarbon dated. Overall, this video is a quick and basic introduction to radiocarbon dating.
Farrokh Bulsara (2 years ago)
Too inaccurate. Disproven so many times.
Somebody else (2 years ago)
+Miles Stoj I know exactly what study you mean. However that study (I will try to edit this comment when I find it) was conducted to try to show the importance of controlling the factors of what you are carbon dating. The example used in that experiment was molsk shells, after carbon dating the molsk shells it showed that they where 20,000 years old however this was obviously false due to the reason no molsk can live anwhere close to 20,000 years. However the researchers where trying to show that the shells the carbon in the molsk shells they lived in where 20,000 years old, not the animal it self.
RidaAthar (2 years ago)
+Grizzly Man I just want to say that not all Muslims are racist or whatever you want to call them. Only some make them look bad, and no I'm not a Muslim but it doesn't mean that all Muslims are bad.
Farrokh Bulsara (2 years ago)
+Grizzly Man Hovind! I know he isn't open-minded, that's why he's foolish. 
ΔKΔNomad (2 years ago)
+Miles Stoj Refrence?
Farrokh Bulsara (2 years ago)
+Grizzly Man Science.
Asrat Mengesha (3 years ago)
What is the decaying speed of dead body of animals? is it linear or exponential? when do dead bodies start fossilizing? thanks.
Asrat Mengesha (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang So, the same many things should apply for radio active dating.
Firomsa Yusuf (3 years ago)
Can someone tell me wtf a carbon 12 or carbon 14 or neutron is ion know wtf this nigga is talking about
Debries (3 years ago)
+Lebron Salvage here you go: An atom is made up out of electrons, protons and neutrons.  Protons and neutrons sit in the core, electrons orbit the core. The number of protons makes an atom do what it does. We name every number of these an element. The number of neutrons can be different. Not all variations are strong. The total of things in the core (proton + neutron) is the number you see. So C12 or N14 etc. The "weak" ones can break up over time, by a certain chance. This way we can calculate the age of something.
JJ Li! (3 years ago)
😀 very helpful
toymaker94566 (3 years ago)
After doing a little research as collaborated in the many posts, it becomes clear that Carbon dating is far from an exact science and hardly reliable beyond a few thousand years.  The claim that Carbon dating is accurate to 60 thousand years is highly unlikely and incapable of expressing the age of the earth by "millions" of years.  I love science but lets be honest, the science of carbon dating is more hype than a truly reliable method for scientific observation..............  Debunked.  :-\
toymaker94566 (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang OK genius, have a nice day........
toymaker94566 (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang Educated men don't need to be so insulting. This is how a child speaks when he's out of his depth. I never said I was religious but since you asked, are you an atheist?
toymaker94566 (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang Oh boy, another peer review genius...... Everything I stated above is 100% correct. Come back when you better understand the facts, then we have something to discuss. sheesh!.............................
Jean Dong (3 years ago)
Andre M (3 years ago)
The amount of assumptions you must make with radiometric dating should deem it a useless method.
Shad Gragg (1 month ago)
It was the petrified trees that they tested and got really far off results. as for Debries, lab results are rarely equitable to real-world results. We don't know the atmospheric composition from then, we don't know the C14 composition of plants and animals back then. It is all guestimation.
Andre M (2 years ago)
So when they date rocks that were formed from Mt. Saint Helens less than 50 years ago and the results show millions of years you're just going to ignore that and claim radiometric dating is reliable? haha.
Debries (3 years ago)
+Andre M not really. All I have to assume is that the proven physics is true. And proven physics is 1) repeatable under lab conditions 2) alligns with all certain calculated values 3) predicts scenario's and events that occur
healthforwealth (3 years ago)
i cant find examples of items carbon dated to early centuries, say from 1st century till now. all i find is a bunch of mumbojumbo about dinosaurs and atheist arguments. Its no wonder nobody believes in evolution. there isnt any proper list of items carbon dated to times where we have near perfect recorded history. how about making tangible evidence and proving you can date an old painting or w/e from 2nd century.
Isaiah Phillip (3 years ago)
+healthforwealth Ok let's do the math.  People did not have 20 kids on average, that's ridiculous.  So i'll make it a more reasonable 8 children per couple.  After a very basic calculation, you find that if the first 4 couples took 20 years to have 6 children, and every single generation after that did the same.  *In 100 years, you have a population of 2048.* And note that this is a perfect world, where nobody dies in childbirth, or gets attacked by animals, or dies of disease. A more reasonable population estimate would be less than one thousand.  *Egypt had a population of 3.5 million people at this time in history*, they were building 500 foot immense tombs for their kings, *There was no flood.*  And if you want me to disprove the flood, i'll happy explain why it's wrong from a geological point of view.
healthforwealth (3 years ago)
+Isaiah Phillip well people used to have like 20 kids lol. So im sure they populated in no time. Their wasnt good contraception back then.
Isaiah Phillip (3 years ago)
+healthforwealth  *"go then, study the bible best you can. Look for the archaeology. Look for the clues."*  Already did that friend, bought into the whole creationism thing. I though evolution was an evil lie from Satan. But I was sorely wrong, and my opinion was changed by reason and evidence. *"Most religions in Asia worship statues of metal, or they worship cows."* At least they worship real things. However I find them equally ridiculous to Christianity. *" Many other cultures/religions believe in The great flood as well."* A few coastal civilizations have flood myths, because they live on the coast where floods and tsunamis are somewhat frequent. And some cultures like Hawaii and Caribbean islands have the global flood myth because it was passed to them by European Christians who colonized. *"The sphinx has massive erosion in egypt, from water. They cant carbon date it because of this."*  I'll have to look this up, but can be nearly certain that it's just apologetic nonsense you read on a Christian website, that is not based on actual evidence.  Fun fact, the pyramids were being constructed about 4,000 years ago, *when the world wide flood supposedly just ended.* How do you think the population increased from 8 people, *to the millions required to build the Pyramids and inhabit Egypt*, in just a couple years or decades? You just need to provide real evidence. That's all I ask. Why shouldn't I be a Pagan? They've presented just as much evidence for their religion as you have... *Which is none.*
healthforwealth (3 years ago)
+Isaiah Phillip i cant just give you my faith and it enter your heart. go then, study the bible best you can. Look for the archaeology. Look for the clues. Life is precious. The universe is well designed. Most religions in Asia worship statues of metal, or they worship cows. the old testament is older than the quran. Quran finished after 600AD in 23 years, and has same biblical stories of moses. Many other cultures/religions believe in The great flood as well. The sphinx has massive erosion in egypt, from water. They cant carbon date it because of this. I cant just show you who is God. But i can show you his word, and its up to you to study and find, whats good enough for you. When is it enough.
Isaiah Phillip (3 years ago)
+healthforwealth It's an interesting story (to say the least) very immoral. But there's simply no evidence to support any of it.  A few vague prophecies is not enough to convince me to fork my life over to a fictional character in the your book who claims to have written the book. It absolutely amazes me that modern people living in the first world, with access to vast reservoirs of knowledge, would still rather believe the stories in a 3,500 year old Jewish book that details talking snakes, magical evil fruit, demon possessions, and witchcraft. *Prove it.*
Kal V. (3 years ago)
Simple and to the point. Thanks Michael!
John Cena (3 years ago)
Liked for no ad :D
blackjackkuo (3 years ago)
nice briefing!! thanks
Truth Seeker (3 years ago)
how can C14 be stable when the animal alive ?
Bogroll T (3 years ago)
+Abdulrahman Mahdaly Right, ok. I see what you meant.
Truth Seeker (3 years ago)
+Bogroll T yes I do know, but I was wondering why only when the animal dies, the C14 starts to decay, but now I knew, that's because the animal eats plants, so it keeps the ratio the same while the animal is alive, once it dies the decay takes place because there's no eating to balance the ratio.
Bogroll T (3 years ago)
+Abdulrahman Mahdaly You do know that living organisms are radioactive?.
Nilo x (3 years ago)
Thanks for this bruh.
Eddie King (3 years ago)
If creationist think that radiometric dating is unreliable they are welcome to come up with their own dating method. So far this hasn't happened because they cannot pass strict scientific guidelines.
Sunny Toppo (11 days ago)
so you appear that c4 dating is errant ??? good... one step at a time..
Maria Ayala (10 months ago)
Id like to ask you something about carbon dating. And this is why I think evolution and carbon dating is stupid.This isn't science. It not an observable fact, carbon dating is based almost completely on assumptions. Suppose you walk into a room, and see a burning candle on the table and I ask you the question when was it lit? Okay so lets do some empirical science which is things we can test and measure and observe and test. Not theoretical. Empirical, we can measure and weight it. 1. lets measure the heigh of the candle, suppose its 7 inches tall. Who can tell me when it was lit? 2. Lets measure the rate of burn, lets say 1" / hour. When was it lit? You're gonna have a hard time telling me unless you're willing to make some assumptions. How tall was it when it started? Heres an answer, you don't know. Has It always burned at the same rate? No idea. Say you find a fossil in the dirt and you can measure how much C-14 is in it. You can measure accurately, and can measure how fast its decaying. Thats just like measuring the height of the candle and how fast its burning. Now when did that animal die?? You don't have a clue. Unless you assume the rate of decay has always been the same, and you assume the c-14 it had when it was alive is the same what we have today. Living penguins carbon dated 8,000 years old. Stupid. Its still alive! Shells from living snail dated 27,000 years old. Thats stupid he's still alive. Yeah they're slow but 27,000 years he'd be dead. One part of a mammoth is 29,500 years old, and another part 44,000. Now you can probably see how funny I find it to read the comments of people talking about how evolution is a fact. Its stupid.
Eddie King (1 year ago)
+Lowe Stromwald Ah yes, philosophy, the lazy man's science.
Aslan Burnley (1 year ago)
+Eddie King It isn't an ad-hominem attack if it is true, also I am not debating you, I am criticizing your lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic and science. PS They don't teach the principles of logic, philosophy, or epistemology in kindergarten. Also nice ad-hominem hypocrite. :)
Bulletproof1951 (3 years ago)
Christians don't use science to try to find God; God uses science to draw us to him. 
YOUR G-D IS A THOUGHT (1 year ago)
>>>G-D uses science<<< Actually, historic Research demonstrates that YHWH, which is painted as a genocidal megalomanic, and a purrvurrt in that he adores circumsliced babee dixx, in other words approves of the Mutilation of Penis Christ, evolved from PolyTheism
Dylan Gilbertson (1 year ago)
Roddy Yang "7 days" isnt actually 7 days. Just because some people believe in God, doesnt mean they'll believe the bible word for word.
Galaxy Spirals (3 years ago)
+Bulletproof1951 Creationist use science in the same way a hobo uses a light post; for support instead of illumination. And when that fails they try to piss on it.
SKABLAUSTER 05 (3 years ago)
Are carbon 14 radioactive? Does it have radium atoms on it
Debries (3 years ago)
+Fadi Khaled radium doesnt make something radioactive. Radioactivity is that atomic cores with certain ammounts of protons and neutrons in it, don't like their arrangement, and that they eventually fall apart. This emits radioactive radiation. And yes, C14 is radioactive. Just like your banana, just like your table, just like your own body.
truth30 (3 years ago)
So will the rate of decay be the same regardless of the past conditions or any other circumstances that could have risen thousands of years ago?
Chong Vang (3 years ago)
false... contrary to previous scientific thinking, chemical environment does noticeably affects the half-life of radioactive decay by electron capture (said by geochemist Chih-An Huh)... and that radioactive isotopes fluctuates in sync with the rotation of the sun's core (said by a Purdue & Stanford scientists)... so although rare, rate of decay is not absolute and should be treated as absolute....
artman40 (3 years ago)
The Last Gentleman (3 years ago)
Wrong you are an idiot
The Void (3 years ago)
3 half lives!!!!!!!! PRAISE LORD GABEN
Shad Gragg (1 month ago)
actually, it goes way beyond three. It starts out as a half of the original, then half of the first half-life, and so on. It isn't a half and the other half like you are thinking...
YOUR G-D IS A THOUGHT (1 year ago)
GD Muffin (3 years ago)
+voidei koggjugjkgjkjuhjujujujgjnfjksnrjgnkjnkrennnnnnnnnnnnnnknknqothnuihqynrjng;kjab5gy;unyjgkgbriuwrying HL3 CUNTFIRMED

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.